do you "less government" rhetoric lovers think there should be no financial

  • Thread starter Thread starter HybriDSM
  • Start date Start date
Absolutely, the military isn't an organization that has to fight for its (financial) survival so efficiency isn't a top concern, this is common to all government programs. Just as a quick example in WW2 Canada had 1.1 million soldiers involved in total war with 11 Generals, today there are 112 Generals for 100,000 troops.

But my point here is that, compared to other government expenses, a large military isn't a bad thing. Being opposed to costs of operations is one thing, but having a large standing army is not a bad thing if the alternative is that money going to other worthless gov't programs. Cutting the military to cut taxes is alright, but rerouting the money to BS programs is stupid. The military employs millions of members and civilians, drives research, instills values and skills in personnel that remain useful long after their careers are done, supports the existence and growth of many small and medium sized towns/cities, not to mention actually being ready for war isn't a bad thing. Americans take that for granted, but if China wanted to, they could wipe out Japan, as wealthy and powerful as it is, overnight.
 
Yep, all those 12 year olds working in the steel mills totally agree that regulation is worthless. And the coal miners are definitely against the government insisting that they leave pillars of coal up to support the roof. I mean that would cut into their profits bro! Regulations are evil!
 
It made quite a lot of difference and you said it yourself. Banks didn't have the money to loan out and that's why other sectors started crumbling we lost 8 million jobs.
 
these jerkoffs don't need their hands in everything...



http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-06/fcc-reclaims-powers-over-internet-access-companies-update3-.html
 
or is it only less government in the places you don't like it. like i'm sure you don't want to shrink the department of defense.
 
Massey Energy and BP ring a bell?

Or perhaps the Wall St guys who destroyed 8 million jobs in the blink of an eye?
 
One I never understood, union workers that were completely against corporations. Yet their pension was invested in all those giant evil corporations.
 
No, bank's didn't have money to fund shitty businesses like GM that can't even make payroll without a lifeline.

Toyota was never in danger. Why is that? How many solid companies have failed during this recession? Compared to how many companies that were only in existence because they were able to overleverage? IOW the same type of behavior that you just said was a problem in the banking & mortgage sectors is what kept GM going for the past 20 years, so why is it the banks fault when GM gets cut off from the trough and finally goes under like it should have a long time ago?

Why should the local bank fund a floorplan for a GM dealership when the people buying GM cars don't have access to HELOCs anymore and sales are next to zero?

Oh, wait, I know, the banks should just keep lending money to everyone endlessly, because then everybody can keep buying stuff and the economy will grow forever
 
Big business loves big government. Without big government, big business wouldn't have an easy way of manipulating regulatory mechanisms and creating artificial barriers for competition.
 
there is a difference between no financial regulation and big business being so intertwined in government that they don't have to worry about regulations because the governments got their back (like what we have now).
 
Back
Top